he Israeli strike on Iran is a stark violation of international law and Iranian territorial sovereignty, akin to India’s May cross-border raid into Pakistan. It flagrantly breaches the UN charter’s prohibition on unilateral military aggression. Regional Arab countries, notably Saudi Arabia, have condemned the attack. Pakistan’s envoy to the UN, Ambassador Asim Iftikhar Ahmad, has asserted before the Security Council that “Pakistan strongly condemns unjustified and illegitimate aggression by Israel against the Islamic Republic of Iran… such strikes violate Iran’s sovereignty and territorial integrity under the UN charter.”

Prior to attacking Iran at will, Israel had already neutralised Gaza, devastated Lebanon and dismantled Iran’s key proxy forces such as Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. Moreover, Syria had undergone a regime change; it is now under a government aligned with Israeli interests. With Iran’s proxies weakened, Israel shifted its focus to Tehran. Meanwhile, the US issued Iran a 60-day ultimatum. Strategically and materially supported by the Trump administration, Israel launched a direct strike on Iran while nuclear talks between Washington and Tehran were under way. This was a choice, not a necessity. Israel could have held back but chose escalation. Importantly, Netanyahu, emboldened by Trump’s support, executed strikes to corner Iran into negotiations from a weakened position. This offensive aligns with a broader Israeli strategy of militarised coercion. By deliberately launching airstrikes during an important phase of diplomatic engagement, the Zionist leadership signaled its intention to pre-condition any negotiation with Iran on the basis of demonstrable military superiority. This form of preemptive sabotage is designed to dismantle Iran’s negotiating leverage, ensuring that any future deal is dictated by Israel and America.

However, despite the much-hyped effectiveness of Israel’s Iron Dome and other layered air defence systems, Iran’s retaliation has been extensive and partially effective. In response to the Israeli airstrikes, Iran launched a barrage of drones and ballistic missiles targeting several Israeli cities, including Tel Aviv, Haifa and Be’er Sheva. Some of these projectiles have evaded interception, damaged infrastructure and caused civilian casualties. The psychological dimension of this counterstrike is significant. For a regime that has long operated with impunity in the region, Iran’s ability to penetrate Israeli defences challenged assumptions of strategic invulnerability.

At the same time, the Israeli offensive inflicted considerable damage on Iran’s strategic infrastructure. More than a hundred sites have reportedly been targeted across the country. These include nuclear enrichment facilities, command-and-control nodes of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and missile storage depots. Israeli precision strikes have eliminated key personnel, including senior nuclear scientists and IRGC commanders. While heavily fortified locations such as the Fordow enrichment plant have survived so far, the psychological and symbolic value of the attack on Iran’s strategic community has been substantial. This was not merely deterrence but also a degradation of Iranian military capabilities.

Importantly, the Gulf countries, while conventionally wary of Iran’s strategic ambitions, have, in recent years, pursued diplomatic normalisation with Tehran. Saudi Arabia, for example, has improved ties with Iran with Chinese mediation. These Arab states understand that regional economic integration cannot proceed amid perpetual confrontation. Israel’s war on Iran, therefore, threatens to unravel ongoing normalisation processes and embolden extremist actors across the region.

In addition, this war has once more exposed the limitations of global governance. The United Nations Security Council, paralysed by competing veto powers, has failed to produce a unified response. The absence of accountability mechanisms in such high-stakes conflicts erodes the credibility of international law and weakens the norm of sovereign inviolability. Unilateral military actions increasingly masquerade as strategic imperatives, further undermining the post-1945 global security architecture.

The international community must urgently step in to arrest further escalation. The Trump administration, having tacitly approved Netanyahu’s war on Iran, must now reassert a stabilising role at the very least on humanitarian grounds since civilians are being killed on both sides. Washington must press both allies and adversaries toward restraint, lest the conflict expand into a multi-front war with unforeseeable consequences. China, which has grown in diplomatic stature in the Middle East, should leverage its influence through the UNSC and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation to mediate a viable de-escalation framework.

Wars may serve immediate political objectives, but they always extract long-term political, economic, environmental and moral costs. The Middle East, already reeling from decades of protracted conflict, displacement and underdevelopment, cannot afford another spiral of violence. Armed confrontation and wars consume public resources, deter foreign investment and inflame sectarian divisions. What the region urgently needs is infrastructure development, energy cooperation, education and climate resilience.

The unfolding conflict between Israel and Iran is a grim reminder of the high stakes in a region where unresolved grievances, failed diplomacy and hardline leaderships continue to dominate political decision-making. What is required now is a reinvigorated commitment to global peace through constructive diplomacy, economic cooperation and cultural connectivity among states and communities. Shared challenges such as poverty, climate change, food insecurity and displacement demand collective responses. It is pertinent to posit that modern wars, especially those involving or targeting nuclear facilities, pose catastrophic environmental risks. Attacks on nuclear sites in densely populated regions can trigger cross-border radioactive contamination, destroy biodiversity and render entire zones uninhabitable. This adds an ecological urgency to the call for regional, if not global, peace. Global leadership, particularly the US under Donald Trump, must rise above partisan interests and act in a statesman-like manner. Rather than enabling a Zionist regime to carry out assassinations and pursue a forced regime change in Iran, Trump must assume the role of a genuine peacemaker committed to de-escalation and international law.

The writer has a PhD in political science from Heidelberg University and post-doc experience at University of California, Berkeley. He is a DAAD, FDDI and Fulbright fellow and an associate professor at Lahore School of Economics. He can be reached at ejaz.bhatty@gmail.com