A Coup Against International Law: The Threat of Trumpism and Zionism to Global Peace and Order-Mostafa Fazaeli

Trumpism and Zionism stand today as the most urgent and dangerous threats to international peace and security. The strategies and actions pursued by these two regimes effectively amount to a direct assault on international law and the very foundations of the legal order that governs relations among nations. Their campaigns of aggression against Iran (in this regard, see Mousavi’s post on this blog) exemplify not only unlawful use of force which Marko Milanovic calls it ‘quite clearly illegal’, but also constitute clear cases of wars of aggression and crimes against peace—offenses that undermine global stability and set a deeply troubling precedent for the rest of the world.

The persistent acts of aggression by the Zionist regime against Iran, alongside the Trump administration’s military assaults on Iran’s nuclear facilities and sites which some have characterized them as “shooting at international law”, represent unmistakable instances of orchestrated wars of aggression and crimes against peace. These hostilities are not isolated incidents; as long as such aggressions continue, the violation of peace remains ongoing, amounting to what international law recognizes as a continuing crime. Moreover, the deliberate targeting of individuals, civilian infrastructure, and sensitive nuclear sites does not merely breach the rules of armed conflict—it qualifies as the commission of war crimes, and, depending on the scope and consequences, may rise to the level of crimes against humanity. Actions that led to the condemnation of Israel’s act of aggression against Iran by various UN experts on June 20, 2025 (here). Such repeated violations threaten not just a single nation, but erode the very foundations of international legal norms meant to protect all of humanity from the horrors of unbridled conflict.

At the heart of the international legal order lies the principle that states, as primary members of the global community, are bound by both treaty-based and customary obligations. When a state deviates from these established norms—through its policies or actions—it exposes itself to the risk of international legal consequences and sanctions. To uphold these critical obligations, especially those concerning the maintenance of international peace and security, the international community has established specialized organizations. These bodies are not merely symbolic; they possess the authority and responsibility to monitor states’ conduct, identify breaches of international law, and determine the appropriate responses to violations. Their role is essential in holding states accountable and preserving the integrity of the international system.

States are fundamentally prohibited from taking unilateral action or relying solely on their own subjective assessments in matters concerning international peace and security. The global system is designed so that responsibility for investigating and responding to alleged threats or breaches rests with duly authorized international organizations and institutions. These bodies are entrusted with the legal mandate to examine claims, determine violations, and coordinate collective action as appropriate. When states bypass these mechanisms and act arbitrarily, the result is the erosion of international order—potentially ushering in a lawless environment where might supersedes right. Within this framework, the United Nations—and specifically its Security Council—stands as the principal authority charged with maintaining global peace and security (Art. 24 of the UN Charter). Any claim regarding the existence of a threat or breach should be brought before this body, which alone possesses the legitimacy to make such determinations and coordinate international responses (see: Arts. 34-37 of the UN Charter). Nevertheless, international law recognizes the inherent right of a state to defend itself if subjected to armed attack, until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. (Art. 51 of the UN Charter).

Disarmament and arms control form a critical part of states’ legal obligations aimed at safeguarding international peace and security. Among these, the nuclear non-proliferation regime plays a pivotal role, requiring states to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons while simultaneously upholding their legitimate right to utilize nuclear energy for peaceful purposes (here). The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) serves as the central authority tasked with enforcing this dual framework. Its responsibilities include monitoring states’ compliance with non-proliferation obligations and facilitating access to peaceful nuclear technology for nations adhering to their commitments. In this delicate balance, the IAEA acts as the global guarantor of both security and equitable technological development—ensuring that the benefits of nuclear energy are not overshadowed by the risks of proliferation.

As a full member of the IAEA, the Islamic Republic of Iran is bound by its commitment to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, while also retaining the inalienable right to develop and utilize nuclear energy for peaceful purposes (here). The logic of international law is clear: if a state party is denied the rights explicitly granted under a treaty, its continued participation in that legal framework loses its justification. For over two decades, Iran has faced intense scrutiny and has been subjected to some of the most comprehensive inspections and monitoring ever conducted by the IAEA. These measures arose out of persistent allegations questioning the exclusively peaceful nature of its nuclear program. Under established international practice, any actions or decisions regarding Iran—whether relating to compliance or alleged violations—properly fall within the exclusive purview of the IAEA, not the discretion of individual member states. In fact, neither the states party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) nor even the members of the IAEA Board of Governors possess the legal authority to unilaterally initiate measures against Iran. It is even less acceptable for non-member states to attempt to interfere in this highly regulated international process.

Accordingly, any attempt to impose unilateral sanctions or undertake coercive measures against Iran under the pretext of nuclear non-compliance lacks legal legitimacy. In fact, such actions themselves amount to violations of the very provisions outlined in the NPT. Unilateral interventions stand at odds with the core principles of the current international legal order and undermine the carefully constructed multilateral mechanisms designed to ensure global security and cooperation.

The Trump administration’s attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities and sites constitute a blatant breach of universally recognized international rules. As scholars such as Milanović and Gill aptly state, the Israeli attacks against Iran cannot be justified under the rubric of self-defense. In the same vein, the use of force by the United States against Iran is likewise unlawful, as it cannot be justified as collective self-defense of Israel (here). Specifically, these actions directly violate Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, a peremptory norm (jus cogens) that unequivocally prohibits any threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of a state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. Such measures also represent a clear contravention of the international legal framework governing the peaceful use of nuclear energy—including the core obligations of the NPT, relevant IAEA resolutions, Security Council Resolution 487 (1981), and fundamental principles of international humanitarian law—which collectively prohibit threats or attacks against peaceful nuclear facilities.

Beyond those violations, these attacks disregard essential rules and provisions of international humanitarian law—including Article 56 of Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, which protects nuclear power plants and similar installations during armed conflict. Furthermore, they defy United Nations Security Council Resolution 487 (1981), as well as several related IAEA resolutions (such as Resolutions 444 and 533), all of which reinforce the prohibition of strikes on nuclear installations. Taken together, these violations not only jeopardize a single nation’s rights, but also erode the global legal standards that protect humanity from the catastrophic risks of nuclear escalation.

The seriousness of these violations is even more pronounced when the perpetrator is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council and an active participant in the IAEA—institutions entrusted with safeguarding the very international legal order now being undermined. When such a state disregards its obligations and acts in violation of the norms it is meant to defend, it sends a profound message of lawlessness and hegemonic ambition. This behavior demonstrates a troubling sense of impunity and arrogance, suggesting that power and self-interest are being placed above the rule of law and the authority of international institutions. Ultimately, such actions not only erode the credibility of key organizations like the UN and IAEA but also threaten the foundations of global governance and collective security.

Remarkably, the Israeli regime—despite not being a party to the NPT—attempts to hold member states to obligations it refuses to accept itself. Under international law, only NPT signatories may invoke the Treaty’s mechanisms or call for compliance from fellow members; any alleged failure by a party to uphold its obligations must be addressed through the IAEA, not through unilateral measures—especially not by a state outside the Treaty framework. Israel’s persistent refusal to join the NPT, its lack of transparency regarding its own nuclear arsenal, and credible reports indicating the possession of hundreds of warheads, all severely undermine its standing to challenge or act against other states on nuclear issues. For a non-signatory to assert authority in this realm, or worse, to threaten or undertake military action based on unilateral accusations, is both legally untenable and deeply destabilizing.

If Israel claims that Iran’s activities pose a real threat, the only legitimate and proper channel available is to present its concerns to the UN Security Council. Even if pre-emptive self-defense could be justified in theory, Israel was not facing an immediate existential threat so serious that it had no option but to use of force (here); alternatives such as recoursing to competent international institutions were still available (see: here). It is worth mentioning that even an author such as Michael Schmitt that argues for Israel’s right to self-defense against Iran, expresses hesitation regarding the permissibility of anticipatory self-defense by Israel, even assuming that Iran’s nuclear program constitutes an existential threat to it (here). Respect for this process is essential to preserve the integrity of international law and to prevent the dangerous normalization of extra-legal and self-proclaimed enforcement of laws. Should Israel claim that Iran’s activities pose a genuine threat, the correct and only legitimate channel available is to present its concerns to the UN Security Council. Respect for this process is essential to preserving the integrity of international law and preventing the dangerous normalization of self-appointed, extra-legal enforcement.

There is no ambiguity: the Israeli regime’s military operations against Iran, along with the Trump administration’s attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities, represent unequivocal examples of wars of aggression and crimes against peace (see: here, here and here). Such acts directly contravene Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter—a cornerstone of modern international legal system that embodies one of its most fundamental and inviolable norms. Under established legal doctrine, aggression on this scale amounts to a crime against peace, and this violation is considered ongoing for as long as hostilities and military aggression continue. These actions not only violate the sovereignty and security of a single state, but also threaten the entire framework of international order designed to prevent exactly this kind of unlawful use of force.

In the current landscape, it is unmistakable that Iran stands as the victim of an aggressive war and armed attacks (here). Under Article 51 of the UN Charter, every state that suffers such attacks retains the inherent right to self-defense. As long as acts of aggression by the Israeli regime persist—and in the absence of effective measures by the UN Security Council to halt them—Iran is entitled to exercise this right (here). The same legal principle applies to acts of military aggression by the United States: so long as effective Security Council intervention is lacking, Iran’s right to proportionate and reciprocal defense remains intact under international law.

This right to self-defense is not discretionary; it is fundamental and enduring. Iran may invoke it either individually or, where circumstances demand, collectively in cooperation with other states. This entitlement endures for as long as the aggression continues, forming the legal bedrock for any defensive military actions Iran might undertake in response. At the same time, Iran retains the right to seek international accountability for the crimes of aggression committed against it—not only by the Israeli regime but also by its principal backers, especially the United States. This includes the pursuit of both state responsibility through diplomatic and legal avenues, and individual criminal accountability for those officials who direct or perpetrate acts of aggression and related crimes (here). These rights extend to the victims and those who have suffered losses, and crucially, they are not subject to any statute of limitations. The Iranian government, its citizens, and other aggrieved parties may assert these claims before relevant national and international tribunals, ensuring that impunity does not prevail.

The broader implications, however, extend far beyond one country. The aggressive posture and policies adopted by both the Israeli regime and the US amount to nothing less than a coup against the very foundations of international law and global order. This situation gives rise to the troubling question of the death of international law in our era. Such conduct imperils not just regional stability, but the entire international community and the achievements of modern civilization. Historical precedent is instructive: especially from 1973 to 1975, Zionism was internationally recognized and condemned as a severe threat to global peace (see: A/RES/3379 (XXX)). Today, that threat not only continues—it has intensified, emboldened by the overt and regrettable support of certain Western governments, most notably the Trump administration.

If such behavior by the US and the Israeli regime is allowed to go unchecked—if the world acquiesces to their unlawful and coercive actions—the damage may be irreparable. The painstaking progress made toward global peace and security over the past century risks being undone. The international community faces a critical choice: to stand firm against this assault on the rule of law, or to accept a future defined by submission and appeasement in the face of unrestrained aggression. Only a unified global response can address this crisis and uphold the principles on which the international order is built.

Concluding Remarks

The persistent patterns of conduct demonstrated by the US in the sphere of international peace and security have increasingly cast doubt on the state’s ethical and legal qualifications for permanent membership on the UN Security Council. Under the UN Charter, the Council’s permanent members are entrusted with a unique mandate: not only to wield power, but to do so in accordance with the highest standards of international law, good faith, and collective responsibility. When a permanent member systematically fails to observe these standards—frequently pursuing unilateral or selective approaches to peace and security—this failure undermines both the legitimacy of the Council’s composition and its very capacity to maintain international order.

Parallel concerns arise in the case of Israel’s continued membership in the United Nations. Israel’s persistent disregard for the foundational principles enshrined in the Charter—most notably, its ongoing and systematic denial of the right of self-determination to the Palestinian people, which constitutes a well-established norm of jus cogens under contemporary international law—stands in direct contravention of Article 4 of the UN Charter. This provision stipulates that membership in the Organization is open to peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the Charter and are able and willing to carry out these obligations. Israel’s refusal to end its prolonged occupation of Palestinian territories and its repeated violations of core UN principles call into question its continued eligibility for membership on a legal and normative basis.

The recent acts of aggression by these two regimes (Trumpism and Zionism) against the territorial integrity, political independence and sovereignty of Iran, as well as their perpetration of grave crimes against the Iranian people, have starkly and more unmistakably than ever exposed their fundamental disregard for international law. Such persistent and egregious disregard for peremptory norms and Charter principles by states occupying central positions within the UN system does more than undermine their own legitimacy: it erodes the credibility and functional authority of the United Nations as a whole, threatening the normative foundation upon which the modern international legal order rests. Ultimately, when foundational obligations are treated as optional by those entrusted with upholding them, it creates a crisis of confidence that may encourage other states to disregard international norms and weaken collective security mechanisms. If unaddressed, this erosion of trust can accelerate the fragmentation of the rules-based international system, making the pursuit of genuine global peace and justice ever more elusive.

The US and Israel, through direct military attacks on Iranian territory and critical infrastructure, notably including nuclear facilities, incur clear international responsibility under the UN Charter, customary international law, and fundamental principles of state and individual responsibility for acts of aggression and war crimes. These actions not only constitute serious breaches of international peace but also violate core prohibitions against the use of force and the targeting of protected civilian and nuclear sites. While the political realities—particularly the veto power of permanent Security Council members—may hinder effective international action, Iran nonetheless retains the right and necessity to exhaust all available avenues. These include invoking Article 35 of the Charter, submitting detailed evidence to the United Nations and human rights bodies, and urging the General Assembly to convene special sessions and pass condemnatory resolutions. Iran must also mobilize support within regional and international organizations, such as the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, Shanghai Cooperation Organization, BRICS, and the Non-Aligned Movement. Additionally, Iran can cooperate with international legal experts to trigger independent action by the International Criminal Court’s Prosecutor and to galvanize global public opinion, thereby increasing international pressure for investigation and accountability of both state and individual perpetrators, even in the face of political obstacles.