The world continues to witness a dangerous trend where might often supersedes morality, and where the mere suspicion of intent becomes enough to justify devastating consequences.
One glaring example of this is the looming threat or even actual contemplation by powers like the United States or its close ally Israel to strike Iran, not because Iran has acted with aggression or attacked another sovereign state, but solely based on the possibility that it might develop nuclear weapons. If this line of reasoning is to be accepted on a global level, it sets a horrifying precedent – a world where preemptive aggression is normalized, and fear becomes the currency of justification.
Specifically, International law was established to prevent such arbitrary actions. The United Nations Charter, the very cornerstone of modern international relations, states in Article 2(4) that “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” This clause alone renders any unprovoked military strike, especially based on potential or assumed threats, a direct violation of international norms.
Moreover, article 51 allows self-defense only in the case of an actual armed attack – not imagined threats, not future possibilities, and certainly not political paranoia.
Yet we see a continued disregard of these principles when it comes to countries like Iran. If Iran, as per international watchdogs like the IAEA, is not currently enriching uranium for weapons-grade purposes and has no confirmed program to build nuclear weapons, then on what moral or legal basis could it be attacked? Even if a state has the capacity to build a weapon — which many technologically advanced countries do – it does not translate to intent.
Furthermore, In criminal jurisprudence, intent matters. One does not imprison someone for possessing a kitchen knife simply because they could, theoretically, use it to harm someone.
This double standard becomes even more striking when we look at nations in the Middle East who have never pursued nuclear arms, or even those who have actively aligned themselves with Western powers. What of their security? Are they not entitled to protection under international law? When aggression is normalized against one, a ripple effect follows, threatening the entire region.
Nevertheless, Arab nations, in particular, are often at the receiving end of global power struggles. Many have faced wars, drone strikes, coups, and sanctions, all under the guise of ‘security’ and ‘stability’.
Besides, it must also be highlighted that such attacks are no longer hypothetical — both Israel and the United States have already violated Iran’s national sovereignty multiple times. Israel, for example, has reportedly carried out dozens of aerial and drone strikes inside Iran, including highly sensitive military and nuclear sites like Natanz and Parchin.
In April 2021, a powerful explosion at Natanz nuclear facility was attributed to Israeli sabotage operations, aiming to cripple Iran’s uranium enrichment program. Likewise, in 2022 and 2023, multiple attacks on Iranian military and drone production factories were linked to Israeli airstrikes using advanced drones and cyber warfare. These are not operations along the border — they are deep intrusions into the very core of Iran’s national infrastructure.
Similarly, the United States has a history of violating Iran’s sovereignty in the name of deterrence. The most prominent example remains the targeted assassination of General Qassem Soleimani in January 2020 via a drone strike in Baghdad, Iraq — an action that not only violated Iraqi sovereignty but also was an act of direct aggression toward Iran. The message was clear: the U.S. was willing to use lethal force beyond its borders, without a declared war, and without UN authorization.
In 2003, NATO forces, led by the United States, launched a military invasion of Iraq based on the assumption that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). However, no such weapons were ever found. This pre-emptive strike resulted in massive loss of innocent lives, destruction of infrastructure, and long-term instability in the region. The war was widely criticized as unjustified and unlawful, lacking solid evidence and approval under international law. Today, similar patterns can be seen as Israel and the U.S. carry out pre-emptive aerial attacks on Iran, violating international norms and armistice principles. Such actions raise serious concerns about selective justice and the erosion of global legal standards, where powerful nations act unilaterally under the guise of “security,” often at the cost of peace and humanity.
This approach also undermines the authority and credibility of the United Nations Security Council. If powerful nations bypass its mechanisms and act unilaterally, then what remains of the promise made to the world after World War II — that never again would power and fear dictate justice? The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court defines the crime of aggression as “the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State.” An unprovoked strike against Iran would qualify as such a crime.
More so, the Caroline Doctrine, often cited in customary international law, sets the standard for preemptive self-defense. It states that the necessity for such defense must be “instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.” Clearly, the potential of Iran possibly one day building a nuclear weapon does not meet this threshold.
The international community cannot afford to remain silent when such violations are even contemplated. It sets a global precedent that any nation, no matter how sovereign, can be bombed into submission without consequence, simply because someone fears what they might do in the future. It is not just about Iran; it is about every small or medium power that could be next in line.
In conclusion, a world order based on fear rather than facts is a dangerous one. International law is not a luxury; it is a necessity to ensure peace, sovereignty, and coexistence. Any attack on a sovereign nation without a confirmed act of aggression is a crime — legally, morally, and politically. The global community, especially international institutions like the UN, must not allow the powerful to twist fear into justification. To do so would not just destroy Iran’s national security – it would undermine the very foundation of international peace.
📍 English Language Educator | Blogger & Content Strategist | 7+ Years in Educational Blogging
Nosheen Bashir is a dedicated English teacher and experienced blogger with over seven years of expertise in content creation and educational writing. Passionate about language, literature, and effective communication, she combines her teaching experience with blogging skills to create insightful, research-backed content that helps learners and educators alike.
🔹 Expertise & Achievements:
✔ English Language Education: A skilled educator with years of experience in teaching English grammar, literature, and communication skills to students of varying levels.
✔ Educational Blogging: Running a successful blog for 7+ years, delivering well-structured, engaging content on language learning, writing techniques, and academic success.
✔ SEO & Content Strategy: Specializes in creating high-ranking, authoritative articles that follow Google’s EEAT principles, ensuring content that is both informative and search-friendly.
✔ Student-Centric Approach: Committed to making English easier, engaging, and accessible, helping readers and students improve their language proficiency.
🚀 With a passion for teaching and writing, Nosheen Bashir is dedicated to crafting educational content that empowers students, teachers, and language enthusiasts worldwide.
