THE Israel-Iran crisis escalated sharply on 13 June 2025 when Israel launched “Operation Rising Lion,” a large-scale military offensive striking deep into Iranian territory.
Israeli air and missile forces targeted key Iranian military and nuclear sites, including Natanz, Isfahan, and areas near Tehran.
Explosions were reported at nuclear facilities, missile depots, and suspected residences of top IRGC officials.
Iranian media confirmed the deaths of several IRGC commanders, including Hossein Salami and Mohammad Bagheri.
This marks a shift from years of covert operations to open kinetic warfare.
Israel’s actions raise serious legal questions.
Under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, the use of force against a state’s sovereignty is prohibited.
Israel may cite Article 51 for self-defence against an alleged imminent Iranian nuclear threat, but the requirements of necessity and proportionality remain contested.
No definitive proof of an impending Iranian strike has been presented, weakening Israel’s anticipatory self-defence claim.
Such force must be a last resort, used only when all peaceful options are exhausted.
Iran’s legal position is also compromised following the IAEA’s 12 June 2025 declaration that Tehran violated nuclear safeguards.
Iran was found enriching uranium up to 60%, hiding undeclared material, and denying access to inspectors, breaching its NPT commitments.
However, such violations don’t legally justify unilateral military action.
The appropriate response should involve diplomacy, sanctions, or a UN Security Council mandate.
Yet, the Council remains deadlocked, with Russia and China blocking punitive actions against Tehran.
This legal and strategic paralysis has led to unilateralism.
With diplomacy collapsed and the JCPOA defunct, Israel’s action reflects a growing global trend of bypassing multilateral frameworks.
Iran has vowed to retaliate, threatening Israeli and US targets.
Regional tensions are escalating, with missile deployments near the Strait of Hormuz and heightened readiness among Iranian proxies in Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq.
A strike from Hezbollah or PMF could entangle Lebanon and Iraq, while threats to Gulf shipping lanes risk drawing in Saudi Arabia and the UAE.
Globally, the consequences are serious.
While the US has reaffirmed Israel’s right to self-defence, it is wary of a broader conflict jeopardizing its interests in both the Middle East and the Asia-Pacific.
Russia and China, while calling for calm, may see this as a distraction that plays to their advantage.
If unchecked, the Israel-Iran war could intersect dangerously with crises in Ukraine and Taiwan, amplifying global instability.
From an international humanitarian law perspective, Israel’s targeted killings of Iranian officials and scientists could violate legal norms.
Unless these individuals were directly participating in hostilities, such actions may amount to extrajudicial killings or war crimes.
The principle of distinction mandates that only combatants and military objectives be targeted.
Alarmingly, diplomacy has broken down entirely.
Talks in Oman have failed, and Iran’s installation of advanced centrifuges signals hardening positions.
Neither side shows willingness to compromise.
The path ahead is perilous; international legal norms are under threat, and without urgent multilateral intervention, this regional war risks spiraling into a global catastrophe.
The Middle East stands dangerously close to the brink.
—The writer is a Research Officer at Rabita Forum International and serves as a Visiting Faculty Member in the Department of International Relations at the University of Karachi.
.
