**
The ongoing military engagement between the United States and Israel against Iran has significantly altered the traditional frameworks governing international warfare. Recent threats from US President Donald Trump to unleash devastating attacks on Iranian energy infrastructure, coupled with Iran’s retaliatory actions towards its Gulf neighbours, have sparked urgent discussions regarding the erosion of established norms in international relations.
A New Era of Warfare
President Trump has made alarming pronouncements regarding the potential for overwhelming military action against Iran, specifically targeting its South Pars gas field. Last week, he stated that if Iran continued its retaliatory measures against Qatari energy assets, he would consider a “massive blow up” of the gas field. On Saturday, he escalated his rhetoric further, asserting that the US would “obliterate” Iran’s power plants if Tehran did not facilitate the reopening of the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz.
These threats contribute to a growing sense of unease about the implications for the global rules-based order, which is intended to protect civilians and prevent unwarranted acts of aggression. Luis Moreno Ocampo, the founding chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), has described the actions taken by the US and its allies as violations of international law, categorising them as crimes of aggression. He pointed out that such assaults on energy infrastructure do not constitute legitimate military targets, drawing parallels with Russia’s controversial attacks on Ukrainian energy sites, which have led to war crimes allegations against Russian officials.
The White House Responds
In light of these claims, the White House dismissed Moreno Ocampo’s statements as “ridiculous”, asserting that Trump is taking decisive action against a “rogue, terrorist regime.” A White House official emphasised that Iran’s history of civilian casualties in the region justifies the US’s assertive stance. US Ambassador to the United Nations, Mike Waltz, echoed this sentiment, arguing that when a regime exploits critical infrastructure for aggression against its own people and neighbours, it becomes a legitimate target.
Conversely, Moreno Ocampo contended that Iran’s retaliatory strikes against Gulf states—none of which have initiated hostilities against Tehran—also qualify as crimes of aggression under international law. The absence of ICC membership for the US, Israel, and Iran complicates the enforcement of these legal standards, particularly given the Trump administration’s sanctions against ICC judges involved in investigations of US actions.
Consequences for Civilians
The conflict has resulted in severe ramifications for civilian populations, particularly in Iran, where citizens are already grappling with power shortages. Rights organisations are voicing concerns that attacks on Iranian energy facilities could exacerbate the humanitarian crisis, as electricity is crucial for water distribution. Iranian officials have responded to threats with warnings of retaliation against the energy and water systems of their Gulf neighbours if such attacks were executed.
The situation escalated further when reports surfaced of missiles landing perilously close to nuclear sites in both Iran and Israel. The World Health Organisation has labelled the conflict as reaching a “perilous stage,” calling for restraint on all sides.
The Broader Implications
Former State Department lawyer Brian Finucane articulated that any strikes against Iranian energy facilities would likely lack legal justification, as they do not clearly represent military objectives. Meanwhile, Israeli airstrikes have targeted numerous fuel depots around Tehran, generating significant destruction and raising further concerns about civilian safety.
Since the onset of hostilities, the International Energy Agency (IEA) has reported that at least 40 energy installations across nine nations have sustained severe damage. The UN Security Council has condemned Iran’s military actions directed towards its neighbours, yet critics argue that Western responses to Iranian violations of international law are undermined by the US’s apparent disregard for these same principles.
Brian Katulis, a former national security official, highlighted the precarious state of the international order, suggesting that Trump’s provocations signal a return to a “jungle” where might dictates right. He noted that the failure to garner international coalitions for securing the Strait of Hormuz reflects a broader erosion of trust among allies.
Why it Matters
The ongoing conflict between the US, Israel, and Iran raises profound questions about the future of international relations and the norms that govern state conduct. As military actions escalate and the potential for civilian casualties looms large, the survival of a rules-based global order hangs in the balance. The responses from world leaders and institutions will determine whether the international community can reassert its commitment to protecting civilians and maintaining peace, or whether we are witnessing the dawn of a more chaotic and lawless era in global affairs.