The United Nations: A toothless tiger in the face of global atrocities

The veto power of the five permanent members of the UN has been used to shield aggressors from accountability for decades and has prevented the organization from applying its founding principles.

By Fareed Khan 

A version of this article can also be found on Substack.

  
As the 23rd month of Israel’s genocide against Palestinians in Gaza approaches, the United Nations (UN), created in 1945 to prevent such atrocities and uphold global peace, stands exposed as a hollow institution, unable to do the job for which it was created. In a Harvard published study based on Israeli military data, Israeli academic Yaakov Garb estimates that 377,000 to 400,000 Palestinians are missing and presumed dead. This catastrophic loss of life underscores the UN’s abject failure to enforce its own Charter and conventions, particularly the Genocide Convention, which obligates states to prevent and punish the crime of genocide.

The veto power of the five permanent UN  Security Council (UNSC) members—the United States, Russia, China, the United Kingdom, and France—paralyzes the UN, allowing powerful nations and their allies to perpetrate international crimes with impunity. The UN’s inability to halt state-sponsored aggression, exemplified by Israel’s genocide in Gaza, mirrors the collapse of the League of Nations’ in the 1930s, when it failed to curb Japan, Italy, and Germany’s violations of international law. Global political and economic conditions today echo circumstances of the 1930s—a deteriorating geopolitical situation and economic turmoil. In this context, and the UN’s historic inability to reign in its members when they have committed genocidal crimes (Rwanda, Rohingya, Uyghurs), the UN’s structural flaws render it irrelevant in confronting atrocities committed by states like Israel.

The UN’s structural paralysis: The veto power

The UN Security Council, tasked with maintaining international peace, is hamstrung by the veto power of its five permanent members (P5). This mechanism, originally meant to ensure great power consensus, has instead been used to shield aggressors from accountability, including the five permanent members themselves. American scholar Stephen Zunes, who specializes in Middle-East politics and US foreign policy, argues that the violations of UNSC resolutions by the US and its allies are in breach of the UN Charter and Geneva Conventions, and demonstrate the double standards used in selectively enforcing resolutions against American adversaries but not its allies. Since the 1970s the US has vetoed over 50 resolutions critical of Israel, repeatedly blocking UN intervention in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Russia and China have similarly vetoed resolutions targeting their allies, preventing action, as in the case of Syria during its civil war.  This echoes the League of Nations’ failure to enforce sanctions against Japan’s 1931 invasion of Manchuria or Italy’s 1935 conquest of Ethiopia, where weak responses emboldened aggressors.

Gaza: A case study in UN failure

Israel’s actions in Gaza since October 2023 exemplify the UN’s impotence. A 2024 UN Special Committee report found that Israel’s warfare, including mass civilian casualties, starvation policies, and destruction of infrastructure, is “consistent with the characteristics of genocide.” The report documented over 52,535 deaths by May 2025, with 70% being women and children, and notes Israel’s deliberate obstruction of humanitarian aid. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued provisional measures in January 2024, ordering Israel to prevent genocidal acts, but Israel has ignored these rulings without consequence. The UN General Assembly has also passed resolutions calling for a ceasefire, but US vetoes in the Security Council render them unenforceable. The role of the US veto in preventing the implementation of a UN backed ceasefire has allowed Israel’s genocide of Palestinians to continue, while the world and the UN are powerless to act.

This mirrors the League of Nations’ failure to counter Italy’s invasion of Ethiopia, where symbolic sanctions excluded critical oil exports due to great power resistance. UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese’s 2024 report, Anatomy of a Genocide, argues that Israel’s actions meet the legal threshold for genocide, yet the UN’s inaction “emboldens further violations.” The UN’s failure to enforce ICJ rulings or provide humanitarian protection in Gaza, due opposition by a member of the P5, highlights its inability to confront powerful states or their allies, a systemic flaw rooted in the veto power.

Historical parallels to the League of Nations

The UN’s continual failures recalls the League of Nations’ collapse in the 1930s. While the League was established to prevent aggression by its members it lacked enforcement mechanisms and relied on great power consensus, a situation similar to that facing the UN. Japan’s 1931 invasion of Manchuria prompted a League investigation, and when the report was tabled it condemned the actions of the Japanese.  The conclusions of the report, which the Japanese delegation rejected, resulted in Japan withdrawing from the organization. Similarly, the League was ineffective in resolving the crisis around Italy’s 1935 invasion of Ethiopia.  The military campaign was marked by the use of chemical weapons and civilian massacres, and was met with weak sanctions, which were undermined by France and Britain’s appeasement policies. The inability of the League to enforce international law was amplified when Nazi Germany annexed Austria and parts of Czechoslovakia, further exposing the organization’s impotence, paving the way for World War II. The League’s inability to act against aggressors not only emboldened further aggression but also rendered it useless at preserving international political stability, a dynamic replicated in the UN’s paralysis today.

The UN’s inability to confront P5 members or their allies mirrors the failures of the League of Nations in the 1930s. Today the US veto shields Israel from accountability over its crimes against Palestinians, just as Britain and France protected Italy in the 1930s. Russia’s vetoes block action on its aggression in Ukraine, where over 13,800 civilians have been killed since 2022. China’s vetoes prevent scrutiny of its abuses against Uyghur Muslims, labelled crimes against humanity by Amnesty International. While India’s policies in Kashmir, including mass detentions and extrajudicial killings since 2019, have been described as potential crimes against humanity.  And yet the UN fails to act due to a systemic flaw where crimes are committed with impunity due to the veto power of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council.

Beyond Gaza: A pattern of impunity

Of course the UN’s failures extend beyond Gaza. The US-led war in Iraq, based on lies about weapons of mass destruction, resulted in close to 300,000 dead, with some putting the death toll at over 900,000.  The actions of the US and its allies destabilized the region and resulted in the rise of the “Islamic state”, and yet the UN imposed no sanctions. The 2011 NATO intervention in Libya, authorized by the UN under the Responsibility to Protect doctrine (R2P), exceeded its mandate, leading to that nation becoming a failed state and an incubator for terrorist groups. Furthermore, in Yemen, air strikes by Saudi Arabia, backed by the US since 2015, caused over 377,000 civilian deaths, with no UN action against either nation.

Additionally, China’s imprisonment of over one million Uyghurs in concentration camps, involving forced labour and sterilization, has been documented by a 2022 UN report, but China’s veto power blocks Security Council action on the matter. In the South China Sea, China’s militarization of disputed islands and creation of islands in contested waters, violates the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, yet the UN has issued no sanctions. 

The ongoing decline of the UN is furthered when repressive governments around the world see leading democracies violate the rights of their own citizens.  Such actions result in leaders of anti-democratic nations justifying their own repressive measures and weakening the international laws and institutions under the UN meant to protect human rights.

Historical failures: Rwanda, Bosnia, and the Rohingya

When it comes to failures the UN’s track record includes a list of crises where lives and societies have been destroyed. The 1994 Rwandan genocide, which killed over 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus, occurred despite the presence of UN peacekeepers, with the Security Council refusing intervention due to veto threats. The 1995 Srebrenica massacre, where over 8,000 Bosniak men and boys were killed under UN watch, also exposed the organization’s inability to protect civilians. And the Rohingya crisis in Myanmar, with over 700,000 displaced since 2017, has seen no effective UN response despite ICJ rulings. Former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan admitted these failures stem from a lack of political will, a view echoed by genocide scholar Gregory Stanton (founder of Genocide Watch), who blames the UN’s paralysis on an unwillingness by P5 nations to give power to the UN that might end up being used against them at some point.

The human cost and moral imperative

The human toll of the UN’s inaction is staggering. In Gaza, entire family lines have been erased, and communities have been wiped off the map, with hospitals, schools, and homes reduced to rubble. Survivors face starvation and disease orchestrated by Israel, with no safe haven. The psychological trauma on children, who constitute nearly half of Gaza’s population, will reverberate for generations to come. Similarly, in Ukraine, Uyghur camps, and Kashmir, millions suffer under the UN’s gaze, their pleas for justice going unanswered. The UN’s failure to act not only betrays its founding principles but also erodes trust in international institutions, fuelling global instability.

A path forward: Reform or replacement

The UN’s inability to prevent atrocities stems from its structural flaws and lack of enforcement power, which is a direct result of the P5 veto. Reform proposals have included limiting the veto through the 1950 Uniting for Peace resolution, which allows the General Assembly to act when the Security Council is paralyzed. A General Conference under Article 109 could amend the veto system, though P5 resistance makes this challenging. Alternatively, an international police force under the International Criminal Court could execute arrest warrants for atrocity crimes, bypassing Security Council gridlock. Regional organizations, like the African Union or the Organization of American States, could also assume greater responsibility for conflict prevention, reducing reliance on a paralyzed UN.

Without reform, the UN risks becoming a relic, and go the way of the League of Nations. The crisis in Gaza, where the UN has failed to enforce ICJ rulings or protect civilians, underscores this urgency. The international order championed by Western nations lies in tatters, as a direct result of their actions, as the UN stands by while powerful states commit atrocities. To fulfill its promise of preventing war and genocide, the UN must evolve into an institution capable of holding all nations accountable, regardless of their power.

© 2025 The View From Here. © 2025 Fareed Khan. All Rights Reserved.

Are we living in a post-human rights world?

Western hypocrisy around human rights extends beyond doing nothing to halt Israel’s genocide in Gaza. They’ve also done little to stop atrocities against the Rohingya, Uyghurs, Darfuris and others.

 

By Fareed Khan 
  
The world seems to be heading towards a precipice, towards a dangerous descent into a reality where human rights are no longer a universal guarantee but a privilege for the select few. The infrastructure of human rights, painstakingly built after the horrors of World War II, is under relentless assault—both at home and abroad. Our political leaders, entrusted with safeguarding these sacred principles, are complicit in their erosion, either through inaction, selective outrage, or outright suppression.

 

The hypocrisy of Western nations, the very architects of the post-war international legal order, is glaring. From being complicit in the ongoing genocide in Gaza to the silencing of dissent in democratic countries like the United States, the evidence is unmistakable. We are perilously close to a post-human rights world, and the vast majority of the public don't even realize the danger this poses. If we fail to defend the domestic and international human rights framework now, we risk a future where no one’s rights are secure, and the term will become meaningless in international law.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, was a beacon of hope, a promise that the atrocities of global conflict and the Holocaust would never be repeated. Eleanor Roosevelt, a champion of this cause, declared, “People who continue to be denied the respect to which they are entitled as human beings will not acquiesce forever in such denial." And we see that today in the oppression of Palestinians by Israel, of Uyghurs by China, of the Rohingya by Myanmar, of Muslims by India, of illegal migrants by the US, and the violation of the rights of people who are LGBTQ2 by Russia. Every assault against the fundamental rights of minority populations is an assault on the human rights of all people, wherever they may be.

Western nations, which claim to uphold the international legal order, display a galling double standard on how they address the matter of violating fundamental rights. When Russia invaded Ukraine, the West mobilized swiftly, condemning Vladimir Putin’s war crimes, talking about how the rights of Ukrainians were violated, and even invoking the term “genocide” to describe Russian actions. Billions of dollars in economic aid and military assistance flowed to Ukraine, a testament to the West’s capacity to act when it feels its interests are under threat. But when Israel’s 20-month campaign of war crimes and crimes against humanity against Palestinians in Gaza unfolded—killing over 63,000 to date, displacing millions, and destroying an entire society—the response is tepid political platitudes and empty calls for restraint. There have been no broad sanctions against Israel as punishment for its crimes, no arms embargoes, no accountability compared to the West’s reaction to Russia’s war in Ukraine. This selective defence of human rights exposes a chilling truth: for the West, some lives are of lesser value, particularly if they happen to be brown or black, and especially if they are Muslim.

Western hypocrisy around human rights extends beyond Palestine. The Rohingya, the Uyghurs, the Kashmiris under Indian rule, and the Darfuris in Sudan face persecution, violence, and erasure, yet Western capitals remain largely silent. Where is the political will to address these crises? As Nelson Mandela once said, “To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.” By ignoring these atrocities, Western leaders are not just failing to act—they are denying the humanity of millions. The Centre for Civil and Political Rights notes a “degradation in cooperation” with UN Treaty Bodies, with states like Sri Lanka, Somalia, and Haiti skipping scheduled human rights reviews, and others, like Burundi, openly defying scrutiny. This disengagement signals a broader contempt for the mechanisms designed to protect human rights globally.

 

Closer to home, the democratic West is no bastion of freedom either. In the United States, the Trump administration has targeted pro-Palestinian protesters with chilling precision. There is the case of Columbia student Mahmoud Khalil, a legal resident of the US married to an American, who was whisked off by Immigration, Customs and Enforcement (ICE) agents to a Louisiana prison, and held for months without being allowed easy access to his lawyer. And then there is the case of Turkish graduate student Rümeysa Öztürk at Tufts University, who was arrested by masked Department of Homeland Security agents and sent to the same Louisiana prison as Khalil. Their “crimes” were that Khalil was a leading voice in anti-genocide protests at Columbia, while Öztürk co-wrote an op-ed in her campus newspaper about Israel committing genocide in Gaza. Hundreds of protesters opposing the Gaza genocide across the US have faced arbitrary arrests and jail time, their right to free speech trampled under the very questionable justification of “national security.”

Meanwhile in Canada, the passage in Parliament of Bill C-5 (“Building Canada Act”) grants the federal government sweeping powers to fast-track infrastructure projects, and ignore Indigenous treaty rights despite widespread opposition from first nations. Indigenous leaders have vowed that major civil unrest by Indigenous people will occur if their views are ignored and their rights violated when the federal and provincial governments move forward on major projects.

Across the Atlantic, Germany has banned the display of the Palestinian flag, while France has moved to suppress pro-Palestinian protests, effectively criminalizing solidarity with a people enduring genocide. These actions are not isolated but reflect a broader surge in authoritarian politics in Western democracies, reminiscent of the 1930s when fascist ideologies stifled dissent, marginalized minorities, and fuelled racist and political violence.

This suppression of free expression extends beyond governments. In the US, Canada and parts of Europe employers are disciplining or even firing workers who publicly criticize Israel’s genocidal crimes. In Canada, major news outlets—CBC, CTV, Global, National Post, and the Globe and Mail—consistently frame stories about Israel and Palestine through an anti-Palestinian, pro-Israel lens, perpetuating racism and curbing the rights of Palestinians to be heard, and tell stories of their persecution.

Compounding this crisis is the severe defunding of UN human rights mechanisms. Critical UN agencies, vital for protecting millions of vulnerable people worldwide, face crippling budget shortfalls due to funding cuts from the United States and other nations. The UN Human Rights Committee, responsible for monitoring compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, has had to scale back its work, including indefinitely postponing Canada’s first review in a decade. At a time when state-sanctioned violence, inequality, and repression are escalating, weakening these institutions undermines accountability, enables further persecution of minorities, and destabilizes societies.

This assault on human rights is not just an international failure—it’s a domestic concern in the West as well. The rise of fascist elements in the West, often cloaked in populist rhetoric, threatens the rights of anyone who doesn’t conform to the dominant majority. In the US (with its MAGA cult), Canada, and Europe, we are seeing a growing intolerance for dissent, particularly when it challenges powerful interests. The suppression of pro-Palestinian voices, being pushed by Zionist groups and their allies, the erosion of Indigenous rights, and the targeting of minority communities signals a dangerous trend. Martin Luther King Jr. reminded us, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” So if we allow these violations to persist unchecked, we pave the way for a world where no one’s rights are safe.

Politicians and the public must wake up and smell the coffee. The global human rights infrastructure is not a luxury we can ignore, it’s the bedrock of a just society and it is under assault like never before. By comparison nations have no qualms about funnelling tens of billions of dollars into military budgets, yet they balk at funding the UN’s human rights mechanisms adequately, which cost a fraction of those sums.

This is not a question of resources but of priorities. The CCPR Centre’s 2023 Annual Report highlights the increasing hostility toward human rights defenders, with some states obstructing dialogue and withdrawing from reviews altogether. Western leaders claiming to defend human rights, but only selectively, enables this backsliding. Canada, the US, and European democracies which repeatedly claim to be upholders of human rights must reinvest in the UN, strengthen treaty bodies, and hold all states—friends and foes alike—accountable for their obligations under international law.

What kind of world awaits us if the powerful and privileged disregard human rights? The result would be a dystopian nightmare. In a world without human rights, dissent against governments and elites would be criminalized, and free speech would be reserved for those aligned with ruling powers, echoing eras when such rights were nonexistent. Protesters, like Palestinian solidarity activists in the US, could face mass detentions without due process, reminiscent of how political dissenters were dealt with in the former Soviet Union. In Canada, Indigenous communities might see their lands exploited for mega-projects without consultation, their treaty rights violated and reduced to hollow words in historical documents. Across Europe, minority groups—whether ethnic, religious, or political—could face unchecked discrimination, their voices stifled by state-sanctioned bans. Globally, atrocities in places like the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Myanmar, or Sudan would multiply, with no international body empowered to take action. The powerless would be left defenceless, their suffering ignored by a world indifferent to their humanity.

This is not exaggeration—it’s a warning of what lies ahead if the silent majority remains passive. Without a robust human rights enforcement framework, the rule of law collapses, replaced by the dominance of powerful and wealthy elites who would be free to violate human rights if it served their interests. Palestinians, Rohingya, Uyghurs, and others would not be the only victims. Everyone, everywhere, would be vulnerable to unchecked authority and power.

Power itself does not always corrupt, but the fear of losing it often does, as seen in nations like China, Russia, North Korea, and El Salvador. The refusal of Western leaders to punish human rights abusing allies like Israel or challenge powerful domestic lobbies that support it, erodes the very principles they claim to champion.

The time for empty promises about upholding human rights is over. Leaders must act decisively, equipping international human rights organizations and UN bodies with the resources to enforce global standards consistently, while safeguarding freedom of expression home by upholding the principles of national foundational documents like Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If we fail to protect the human rights framework we have now, we risk waking up to a world where those rights have been severely weakened or eliminated. The future of our fundamental human rights is in our hands. It is within our power to protect the rights we take for granted or let governments and powerful interests destroy them bit by bit, and return to a darker era, before the concept of human rights existed.

  
© 2025 The View From Here. © 2025 Fareed Khan. All Rights Reserved.

US attack on Iran could be a step toward global catastrophe and the beginning of the end of the United Nations

The inability by the UN to rein in aggressor nations mirrors the League of Nations’ failure in 1935, to stop Italy’s invasion of Ethiopia leading to its demise.

  

By Fareed Khan 

       

On June 21, 2025, American president Donald Trump ordered a military strike on Iran, targeting its nuclear facilities and military infrastructure. This unprovoked act of aggression, following Israel’s earlier attacks, not only escalates tensions in the Middle East but also signals the potential collapse of the United Nations as a credible enforcer of international law. The UN, already weakened by decades of inaction in the face of global atrocities by state actors, now faces a crisis reminiscent of the League of Nations’ failure in 1930s, when Japan invaded and conquered Manchuria in 1932, and when Italy invaded Abyssinia (Ethiopia) in 1935, exposing its impotence.

 

 

In the face of the global community’s inability to stop the US or Israel from attacking Iran further this could light the fuse for a broader conflict, destabilizing the entire region, and potentially leading to global war. It is up to nations committed to the rule of law—particularly Western democracies—to condemn this naked aggression against a nation that posed no imminent threat to the US or Israel. Moreover, this aggression underscores a troubling pattern where the US consistently targets adversary nations unable to match its military might whey they allegedly violate international law, while shying away from confronting powerful adversaries like Russia which has invaded and occupied parts of Ukraine. Under Trump, and with this attack, the US has provided more evidence that it is a rogue nation, posing the greatest threat to global peace.

 

The UN has long struggled to uphold its mandate to maintain international peace and security. Established in 1945 to prevent the horrors of another global war, the UN’s effectiveness has been hamstrung by the veto power of the five permanent Security Council members: the US, Russia, China, the UK, and France. This structural flaw has rendered the UN a toothless tiger, incapable of acting decisively against powerful aggressors. From the Kashmir conflict between Indian and Pakistan, Israel’s decades-long violations of Palestinian rights to the Rwandan genocide, the Balkans conflict, the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, and the ongoing crises involving the Rohingya and Uyghurs, the UN has consistently failed to enforce the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Genocide Convention or the Geneva Conventions. Nations and their leaders which have committed crimes under international law have literally gotten away with murder.

The US strike on Iran is a stark reminder of this impotence, and how seriously broken the so-called international legal order is. Iran had already called for a UN Security Council session to address this blatant violation of its sovereignty as a result of Israel’s attacks, and threats by the US to join Israel’s unprovoked war. But had the meeting taken place it is more than likely that the US would have vetoed any resolution that would have advocated for peace and a ceasefire between Israel and Iran. This inability by the UN to rein in aggressor nations mirrors the League of Nations’ failure in 1935, when Italy’s invasion of Ethiopia faced only token sanctions, exposing the League’s inability to enforce international law. The League’s collapse soon followed, and the UN is now heading towards that same cliff. It may not happen tomorrow but the drift of the UN towards such an end is evident. A post on X by UN Secretary General Antonio Gutterres, condemned the US strike as a “dangerous escalation” and a “direct threat to peace and security, and urged diplomacy, underscoring the organization’s desperation to stay relevant. Yet, without the ability to hold veto-wielding nations accountable, the UN’s credibility as a guarantor of global stability is crumbling as the great powers ignore its pleas for peace and do as they please, with little regard for diplomacy or peace.

The justification for the US and Israeli attacks on Iran—allegedly to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons—lacks credibility. US intelligence officials have stated as recently as last week that Iran is not actively pursuing a nuclear weapon—an assessment that Trump has ignored. Iran has consistently maintained that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, a right it holds under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which Israel (an illegal nuclear nation), notably, is not a party. The Israeli strikes, followed by US involvement, appear less about neutralizing a genuine threat and more about advancing Israel’s agenda of becoming the supreme military power in the region, and undercut Iran’s support for the Palestinian resistance movement, which is the strongest among Middle-East nations.

Academic and media analyses reinforces this view. Trita Parsi of the Quincy Institute has argued that Iran poses no existential threat to Israel, and any US attack would be driven by Israel’s desire to cripple a regional rival that vocally opposes its policies toward Palestinians. The Atlantic Council notes that Israel’s strikes were motivated by a narrow window of opportunity to target Iran’s nuclear program, not by an imminent threat. This suggests a premeditated act of aggression by Israel rather than a defensive necessity, undermining claims that Iran was an immediate danger to regional peace.

Far from enhancing security, the US and Israeli attacks on Iran risk plunging the Middle East into further chaos. Iran’s retaliatory missile and drone strikes on Israel, which have killed civilians and damaged infrastructure, demonstrate the potential for escalation. The conflict threatens critical global trade routes, such as the Strait of Hormuz, through which half of China’s oil imports pass. Iran’s weakened but still capable military, combined with its proxy forces, could target US bases or shipping lanes, drawing the US into a protracted conflict that will drain its treasury and weaken the US further.

The precedent set by US interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya suggests that such actions often lead to unintended consequences—failed states, refugee crises, and the rise of extremist groups. A destabilized Iran could trigger a regional power vacuum, fuelling civil war or enabling terrorist groups to seize nuclear materials, and create a refugee crisis on par with the Syrian crisis in the early 2010s. The US attack, far from neutralizing a threat, has heightened the risk of a broader regional conflict, with ripple effects that could destabilize surrounding nations, the way that Syria was destabilized as a result of the Iraq War.

The US has a long history of targeting adversary nations unable to match its military might, while avoiding direct confrontation with more formidable adversaries. Iran, despite its regional influence, lacks the capacity to challenge US military dominance directly, making it an easy target. In contrast, the US has refrained from military engagement with Russia over its invasion of Ukraine, despite Russia’s clear violation of international law. Trump’s cancellation of a planned meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on June 17, 2025 at the G7 Summit, to focus on the Iran conflict highlights this selective approach. If the US truly prioritized enforcing global peace, it would have confronted Russia’s aggression head-on with military force, rather than targeting a nation like Iran, which has not invaded or occupied another country in modern history.

This pattern of selective aggression—attacking weaker states like Iraq, Libya, and now Iran, while avoiding peer adversaries—exposes the US as a global bully and a rogue nation. The 2003 invasion of Iraq, justified by lies about weapons of mass destruction, resulted in more than a million deaths, a destabilized region, the creation of ISIS, increased incidents of terrorism, and failed to enhance US security. Similarly, the US intervention in Libya in 2011 led to a failed state and a proliferation of arms to terrorist groups, undermining global stability. These actions demonstrate that American aggression, far from making the US safer, often exacerbates threats and fuels anti-American and anti-Western sentiment.

Under Donald Trump, the US has embraced a reckless foreign policy that prioritizes unilateral action over diplomacy. Trump’s bellicose rhetoric, including threats to “take out” Iran’s Supreme Leader and demands for “unconditional surrender,” reflects a delusional and dangerous disregard for international norms. His decision to attack Iran, despite ongoing nuclear negotiations, undermines the diplomatic efforts of US allies and shows the world that the US is a danger to its adversaries as well as its allies. Trump’s apparent yearning for an era when imperialism ruled the world is likely to cause other nations to see it as a danger to global peace and will accelerate US decline as a global power.

The United State’s actions under Trump mirror those of a rogue nation, launching unprovoked attacks, flouting international law and destabilizing peace and the global order. By aligning closely with Israel, another state accused of violating international norms, the US has eroded its already diminishing moral authority. The failure of US allies—particularly NATO members—to condemn this unprovoked aggression risks legitimizing a global order of might-makes-right. If these nations do not act to uphold the rule of law, they will be complicit in the erosion of the international legal order and the potential slide towards a conflict that could engulf nations around the world.

The American attack on Iran could be the spark that ignites a broader war. Russia, a key Iranian ally, has warned that the conflict risks a “nuclear catastrophe,” while China, reliant on Iranian oil, faces significant economic disruption, and could act to protect its economic interests. In addition, the involvement of regional actors, such as the Houthis, who have threatened to target ships in the Red Sea or Hezbollah, could escalate the conflict further. If Iran retaliates against US bases or allies, the cycle of escalation could knock over other dominoes, draw in other major powers, and result in a global conflagration.

The UN’s inability to act decisively, coupled with the unilateral aggression by the US sets a dangerous precedent. Nations like China, North Korea, or India, emboldened by the collapse of international norms, may pursue their own aggressive ambitions—China against Taiwan, North Korea against South Korea and Japan, and India against Pakistan—further destabilizing the global order. The failure to hold the US accountable could mark the beginning of the end for the UN, just as the League of Nations dissolved in the face of unchecked aggression by Japan, Italy and Nazi Germany.

The international community, particularly US allies, must condemn this act of aggression and demand accountability. The UK, France, Russia and China, as veto holding members of the UN Security Council, along with the 10 non-permanent UNSC members should push for sanctions against US officials involved in the strike, even if a US veto renders such efforts symbolic. Failure to act will embolden further violations of international law, paving the way for a world where aggression will become the norm between adversarial nations, and make meaningless the few rules that maintain an uneasy global peace. The US attack on Iran is not just a regional crisis, it is a global warning. If the rule of law is to survive, nations (including US allies) must unite to reject this dangerous rogue behaviour and chart a path towards diplomacy leading to peace.

  

© 2025 The View From Here. © 2025 Fareed Khan. All Rights Reserved.