The joint assault by the United States and Israel on the Islamic Republic of Iran marks a decisive escalation in the long arc of post–Cold War imperial warfare. Marketed as pre-emption, counter-proliferation, and democratic necessity, it is better understood as a war of choice—one rooted in strategic dominance, domestic political crisis, and the reproduction of a regional order structured around militarized hierarchy.

This is not merely another Middle Eastern war. It is an episode in the ongoing attempt to preserve a declining unipolar system through coercion. It raises urgent questions of legality, regime change, regional destabilization, electoral opportunism, and the political economy of Gulf security. Above all, it reveals once again that in imperial warfare, unintended consequences are not accidents but structural inevitabilities.

The Illegality of Aggression

Under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state is prohibited. The only recognized exceptions are (1) Security Council authorization under Chapter VII, and (2) self-defence under Article 51 in response to an armed attack.

Neither condition applies.

Iran did not launch an armed attack on the United States prior to the February 2026 strikes. Nor was there any Security Council resolution authorizing force. Claims of anticipatory self-defence—frequently invoked in post-9/11 doctrine—fail under established international law standards, which require imminence. The burden of proof lies with the attacker. No credible public evidence demonstrated an imminent Iranian strike against US territory.

Regime change is not a lawful ground for war. The overthrow of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953—engineered by US and British intelligence—stands as historical precedent for intervention, not as legal validation. The Responsibility to Protect (R2P), adopted in 2005, reaffirmed collective action under UN auspices; it did not legalize unilateral military action by powerful states acting outside multilateral authorization.

Moreover, targeted killing of political leaders raises profound questions under international humanitarian law. If a head of state is not directly participating in hostilities, assassination constitutes extrajudicial killing. Reports of strikes on civilian infrastructure further implicate the laws of distinction and proportionality under the Geneva Conventions.

Domestically, the US Constitution vests war powers in Congress. In the absence of explicit congressional authorization, executive initiation of hostilities contravenes the War Powers Resolution. What we witness is not only an international law violation but the normalization of executive militarism.

Imperial prerogative replaces constitutional........

© Eurasia Review