The new round of coordinated military attacks by the United States and Israel against Iran marks a dramatic escalation in an already volatile confrontation.
The strikes, capping months of tensions since a previous wave of attacks in 2025, have pushed the region into one of its most dangerous moments in decades.
At a time when diplomatic channels had reportedly shown signs of progress, the renewed use of force has raised urgent questions about legality, legitimacy and the long-term consequences for regional and international security.
There is a broad global consensus that the US-Israeli military campaign constitutes a clear violation of the United Nations Charter and international law.
Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, except in cases of self-defence or with Security Council authorisation. No such authorisation was granted, and international legal scholars have long emphasised that preventive or regime-change wars fall outside the Charter framework.
This is not the first time that Washington has faced accusations of undermining international legal commitments in relation to Iran. In 2018, the US withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal, despite the agreement’s endorsement by the UN Security Council. The withdrawal was widely criticised by European governments and other signatories, including Russia and China.
Now, through direct military strikes against Iran, Washington has been accused of violating core principles of the UN Charter – particularly those related to sovereignty, the prohibition on the use of force, and non-interference in the internal affairs of other states.
Political consciousness
History weighs heavily on current events. In 1953, the US, in collaboration with the UK, orchestrated a coup that overthrew Iran’s democratically elected prime minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh.
The consequences of that intervention shaped Iranian political consciousness for decades and directly affected bilateral relations. The 1979 revolution, and the subsequent occupation of the US embassy in Tehran and hostage crisis, cannot be understood without that context.
More than seven decades on, the shadow of 1953 still looms over US-Iran relations. But this time, the stakes appear even higher. The US has officially called for regime change. In the course of the operation, Iran’s supreme leader and several top military commanders were assassinated.
The targeting of a sitting head of state marks a profound escalation. It moves beyond deterrence or limited military objectives, and enters the realm of overt regime-change policy. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the negative consequences of this action could be broader and more far-reaching than those of the 1953 coup.
Both the US-Israeli military strikes on Iran in June 2025, and the attack that began this weekend, occurred at moments when negotiations had achieved significant progress, according to Oman’s foreign minister.
Oman was a key mediator, facilitating indirect talks. The chain of events suggests that military action coincided with diplomatic momentum. From this perspective, diplomacy has effectively been sidelined, perhaps indefinitely.
Many are convinced that the US pursued negotiations not as genuine diplomacy, but as cover, allowing it to prepare for war. When bombs fall at the height of talks, trust collapses.
The consequences of assassinating Ayatollah Ali Khamenei go far beyond the killing of an Iranian political leader. As one of the leading religious authorities in the Shia world, he held both political and theological significance. Some Shia clerics have already issued calls for retaliation, with Grand Ayatollah Naser Makarem Shirazi in Qom, Iran, saying revenge for Khamenei’s killing was the “religious duty of all Muslims in the world to eradicate the evil of these criminals from the world”.
Attacks have already occurred against US diplomatic missions in Pakistan and Iraq, resulting in casualties. Washington may now have to confront the prospect of long-term ideological hostility among segments of the global Shia population – a dynamic that cannot be addressed through military means alone.
Immense strategic costs
The collapse of a government because of a military attack does not produce a simple or controllable outcome. Even if Washington and Tel Aviv were to succeed in bringing about a political transformation in Tehran, the strategic costs could be immense.
For the first time since World War II, major US military bases across the region have come under sustained attack. The reputational impact on American prestige could surpass even the symbolic damage inflicted by the 1979-81 hostage crisis.
At the same time, Israel and Iran have entered what can only be described as an existential phase of conflict. Iran has sustained severe military damage, while Israel has faced the most intense strikes on its territory since its founding in 1948.
Iran’s heavy missile attacks have exposed vulnerabilities in Israel’s security architecture, despite its advanced defence systems. The perception of invulnerability – central to deterrence – has been shaken on both sides.
Yet within hours of Khamenei’s assassination, a three-member leadership council was formed to steer the process of transition, signalling that expectations of immediate state disintegration might have been misplaced.
The US-Israeli approach is troubling for several reasons. Firstly, by assassinating Iran’s supreme leader, they crossed a red line within Iran’s governing structure. Secondly, by officially declaring that its objective is regime collapse, the US framed the conflict as existential. Iran’s response is thus perceived domestically as a defence of national survival.
Thirdly, as anticipated, the conflict has become regional. Iran has launched missile strikes against US facilities in neighbouring countries, broadening the theatre of confrontation. The trajectory is deeply alarming: escalation breeds counter-escalation, as each side justifies its actions as defensive.
The risks of miscalculation grow with every exchange. Energy markets are destabilised. Regional actors are drawn in. Diplomatic space shrinks.
It would be wiser for US President Donald Trump to push now for an immediate ceasefire, to prevent further catastrophe. The longer this conflict continues, the harder it will be to contain.
Military force can destroy infrastructure and eliminate individuals, but it cannot extinguish national identity, religious conviction or historical memory. The lessons of 1953 still resonate. If history teaches anything, it is that interventions intended to secure stability often produce decades of unintended consequences.
The choice now is stark: continue down a path of open-ended confrontation, or halt the escalation and return to diplomacy – before the damage becomes irreversible.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.
Seyed Hossein Mousavian is a Visiting Research Collaborator with Princeton University and a former Chief of Iran’s National Security and Foreign Relations Committee.
3 March 2026
Source: middleeasteye.net