MADRID – On June 22, 2025, the United States bombed Iranian nuclear facilities in a coordinated strike with Israel, shattering any remaining illusions about the nature of the so-called international order.

Far from being an isolated or reactive action, the bombing crowned a sustained campaign of pressure that, under the guise of diplomacy, concealed a deliberate strategy of suffocation and provocation. Like the war launched by Israel on June 13, the U.S. attack lacked any legitimate legal or strategic justification. By every measure, it was a premeditated and unprovoked act of aggression.

The offensive, which unleashed destructive power on the facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan, not only violated the principle of sovereignty enshrined in the United Nations Charter but also blatantly undermined the nuclear non-proliferation regime. All three sites were under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and there was no indication or proof that Iran was diverting its nuclear program toward military ends. Nevertheless, Washington and Tel Aviv opted for unilateral action, eroding not only international legality but also the last remnants of trust in multilateral mechanisms.

A foretold aggression

For those who have closely followed the Iranian dossier, the offensive came as no surprise. For months, the U.S. had ramped up its rhetoric around the so-called “Iranian threat,” despite the IAEA itself confirming the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear activities. In retrospect, U.S. diplomacy—presented as an effort to prevent escalation—has revealed itself to be a calculated stalling operation. Each round of negotiations, each gesture of supposed de-escalation, was merely a tactic to buy time as the attack was being prepared.

The coordination between Washington and Tel Aviv has been evident from the outset. Israel’s operations on June 13, which marked the beginning of a new phase of hostilities against Iran, served as a test balloon to gauge Iran’s response capacity and lay the groundwork for U.S. intervention. The narrative of a “legitimate response,” carefully crafted by both regime, is as predictable as it is cynical: nuclear powers acting as judge, jury, and executioner in a global arena they themselves have engineered.

The instrumentalization of law

International law explicitly prohibits the use of force except in self-defense against an armed attack or through a UN Security Council resolution. Neither condition was met in this case. What occurred is not an exception but part of a long-standing pattern of instrumentalizing legal norms by hegemonic powers. In this framework, rules are not universal but malleable: applied rigorously to adversaries and ignored when they inconvenience allies—or oneself.

From its inception, the international legal system has been shaped to serve the interests of power. The non-proliferation regime, which imposes strict limitations on countries in the Global South while allowing nuclear powers to maintain their arsenals with no serious commitment to disarmament, is one of the clearest expressions of this asymmetry. The moral categorization of states—“responsible democracies” versus “dangerous regimes”—enables a differential application of legality, a neocolonial logic that reproduces the old imperial order with new vocabulary.

The disintegration of order

The attacks on Iran have not only violated core principles of international law; they have also deepened the structural crisis of the global order. The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), once a central pillar of collective security, has been stripped of meaning. If IAEA compliance does not shield a state from military assault, what incentive remains to adhere to the rules?
The consequences are profound:
Delegitimization of the NPT: The aggression shows that adherence to the treaty offers neither protection nor recognition.
Incentives for nuclear deterrence: In a legal framework without guarantees, the development of deterrent capabilities becomes a rational option for Global South states.
Erosion of multilateralism: Unilateral actions replace institutional mechanisms, turning international security into a lawless power game.

Law as imperial technology

Contemporary international law remains anchored in a colonial architecture. Its institutions, language, and mechanisms of validation reflect the power dynamics forged after World War II and solidified during the Cold War. Within this structure, the Global South is not only surveyed but defined by others: its legality, rationality, and margins of action are subject to the judgment of Western powers.

The classification of Iran as a “threat” or “destabilizer” does not stem from verifiable facts but from a discursive apparatus that casts it as the uncontrollable “other”. Against this matrix, Iran’s response—measured, strategic, and legally grounded—not only disrupts imposed stereotypes but also reveals that the true threat to global order does not emanate from the periphery, but from the center.

Iran responds: Legality and resistance

Despite the brutality of the attack, Iran has chosen a calculated response. As government sources noted, key facilities had been evacuated days prior, amid growing suspicion of an imminent strike. This confirms that Tehran was not caught off guard, but rather acted with foresight and responsibility, avoiding escalation beyond what is required by the right to self-defense enshrined in the UN Charter.

Beyond the military dimension, Iran’s response targets a deeper front: the struggle for legitimacy. By denouncing the aggression through international bodies and invoking universal legal principles, Iran is shifting the debate from the terrain of force to that of justice. The potential closure of the Strait of Hormuz—raised by Iranian analysts—should not be seen as an irrational threat, but as a legitimate countermeasure in response to the violation of its sovereignty.

From the perspective of a Global South historically subjected to violence and double standards, such responses represent acts of political dignity. This is not about breaking the rules, but about exposing their arbitrary nature. As demonstrated by the attacks from the U.S. and Israel, violence is not an accident of the system—it is one of its structural conditions.

The attack on Iran must not be analyzed in terms of proportionality or tactical wisdom, but rather as a manifestation of a deeper logic: that of an international system that has lost all capacity to arbitrate fairly among its members. The U.S. intervention, far from being a desperate move, was a conscious and premeditated decision, based on the belief that force remains the ultimate language of global politics.

As long as Washington and Tel Aviv act with impunity, and as long as law remains a tool of the powerful, international security will remain a mirage. The only path toward a truly equitable global order requires dismantling the colonial structures of international law and replacing them with inclusive legal frameworks that reflect not only the interests of the powerful, but also the dignity of peoples who have long been silenced.