Diplomacy Bombed: How the Israel-US Bombardment on Iran Buried International Law in Pursuing Regional Hegemony

Launched in the midst of optimistic nuclear negotiations, the attack on Iran signals not deterrence but the collapse of diplomacy and the international legal order. What began as a “preventive strike” has become a regional conflagration in a widening conflict.

A Strike in the Midst of Diplomacy: Undermining Negotiation and International Norms

In such a context, the timing of the attack raises fundamental geopolitical questions. If diplomatic momentum was building, why escalate militarily? From my perspective, the strike appears less as a defensive necessity (at least from the side of the U.S.) and more as a strategic move by Israel to prevent a US–Iran accord that could have altered regional power balances. Diplomacy was once again sidelined in favour of force, a recurring pattern in Israeli and US politics.

Under international law, the legitimacy of preventive military action is highly contested unless an imminent threat is demonstrable. The argument that Iran poses a direct and immediate threat to US territory remains far from credible. Rather, the justification appears anchored in Israel’s long-standing security doctrine of preemption: a doctrine historically invoked to justify strikes against perceived existential threats. Yet preemption without clear imminence blurs the line between defence and aggression, especially when undertaken without explicit authorisation from the United Nations Security Council.

The absence of congressional approval in Washington further complicates the domestic legal framework of the U.S. intervention. For many Americans, the question is not simply geopolitical but constitutional: does the executive branch have the authority to initiate another major war without legislative consent? Public protests across US cities suggest that support for escalation is far from unanimous.

Strategic Calculations: Israeli Regional Hegemony and Regime Change

Israel’s strategic rationale appears rooted in a broader regional vision. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has consistently framed Iran as the principal threat to Israeli security, and since the 1990s, Netanyahu has announced that Iran is weeks or months from getting the atomic bomb. The objective, critics argue, extends beyond nuclear containment toward the weakening or the collapse of the Iranian regime itself. For Netanyahu, only an Iran abiding by the Abraham Accords is welcome.

Statements by former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett suggesting that “Turkey is the new Iran” hint at a wider strategic outlook: neutralise emerging regional competitors sequentially to preserve Israeli military superiority. In this view, implementing chaos in Iran could produce a fragmented regional landscape in which Israel remains the dominant military power.

However, regime change operations rarely succeed through airstrikes alone. The assassination of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, rather than precipitating collapse, appears to have consolidated nationalist sentiment. Martyrdom narratives are powerful in Iranian political culture; instead of weakening the regime, such actions may harden internal cohesion and accelerate succession mechanisms. History shows that external attacks often strengthen authoritarian systems rather than dismantle them. Moreover, civilian casualties, including reported strikes on hospitals and girls’ schools, deepen international scrutiny.

Europe’s Divided Response: Shameful Subordination

The European reaction has revealed fractures within the European Union. High Representative Kaja Kallas adopted language perceived as disproportionately critical of Iran while avoiding a clear condemnation of Israeli or American actions.

Meanwhile, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen publicly floated the idea of a “credible transition” in Iran, interpreted as a tacit endorsement of regime change, despite lacking a formal mandate to determine EU foreign policy.

In contrast, Spain adopted a markedly different stance. Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez condemned the strikes as violations of international law and blocked US aircraft from using Spanish bases beyond agreed bilateral frameworks. Spanish Foreign Minister José Manuel Albares reaffirmed that bases such as Naval Base Rota and Morón Air Base operate under strict sovereignty constraints.

German officials are discussing possible participation — potentially via coordination from Ramstein Air Base — highlight the EU’s strategic dilemma. Unlike support for Ukraine, there is no unified European strategy or clearly defined quid pro quo with Washington.

Europe may ultimately bear disproportionate consequences: surging energy prices, renewed refugee flows, and the strengthening of far-right movements capitalising on instability. Strategic alignment without autonomous policy planning risks undermining EU credibility as a normative power committed to multilateralism.

Regional Escalation and the Risk of a Wider War

The Middle East is already trapped. Iran has targeted all countries hosting US, British, and French bases in the region that have allowed the use of the airspace to bomb the Islamic Republic, transforming the confrontation into a broader regional conflict. The reported strike claims involving the USS Abraham Lincoln illustrate the rapid horizontal escalation potential.

Saudi Arabia and the UAE appear increasingly aligned with Washington and Tel Aviv, authorising defensive or retaliatory measures. Oil and gas markets have responded sharply, accentuating the global economic implications.

According to the analysis discussed on France Télévisions, the United Arab Emirates emerges as the country most exposed after Israel due to its strategic positioning and close security alignment with Washington. As a key logistical, financial, touristic, and military hub in the Gulf, hosting sensitive infrastructure and major Western interests, the UAE becomes a prime target for potential Iranian retaliation while remaining highly vulnerable to energy shocks and disruptions in regional trade and investments. Beyond the immediate security risks, the broader economic model of the Gulf monarchies — heavily dependent on stability, global investment flows, and uninterrupted energy exports — now faces an existential threat in the event of prolonged regional escalation.

Meanwhile, China faces a strategic calculation. As Iran’s key economic partner and energy supplier, Beijing has incentives to prevent regime collapse and regional chaos. Yet direct military involvement would risk confrontation with the US. China is therefore likely to provide diplomatic and information backing, as well as economic lifelines, rather than overt military support.

The prospect of “World War III” remains speculative, but miscalculation risks are real. When multiple regional and global powers are indirectly engaged, escalation ladders become difficult to control. Russia is aware of it and is acting cautiously.

Political Futures: Domestic Costs and Strategic Uncertainty

Domestically, President Donald Trump faces political risk. Initiating a new Middle Eastern war without broad public support or congressional authorisation may deepen polarisation. Anti-war protests across American cities suggest limited enthusiasm for prolonged engagement.

For Israel, victory is similarly elusive. Air superiority does not automatically translate into political transformation. For Iran, martyrdom and nationalist mobilisation may strengthen rather than weaken regime legitimacy.

The central geopolitical paradox remains: even if framed as preventive security, the operation may ultimately consolidate Iran’s internal unity, destabilise the Gulf monarchies and Europe economically, and entrench long-term regional volatility.

In sum, this crisis therefore extends beyond Iran, signalling a disturbing reality: international law appears increasingly reduced to rubble, its authority buried in the graveyards of modern warfare, a reality confirmed by the rhetoric of Pete Hegseth, who has stated that U.S. strategic decisions should not be subordinated to democracy, international legal norms, or multilateral constraints.

Ricardo Martins, Doctor in Sociology with specialisation in geopolitics and international relations

Follow new articles on our Telegram channel

© New Eastern Outlook