MADRID – On June 22, 2025, the US bombed Iran’s nuclear facilities on a coordinated strike with Israel, shattering the remaining illusions about the nature of the so-called international order.
Rather than isolated or reactive actions, the bombing was crowned with a sustained campaign of pressure that poses as a diplomacy, hiding intentional strategies of asphyxiation and provocation. Like the war launched by Israel on June 13th, the US attack lacked legitimate legal or strategic justification. On every measure, it was a planned and unprovoked act of aggression.
The attacks that unleashed destructive forces at the facilities of Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan not only violated the principles of sovereignty enshrined in the UN 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 were no indications or evidence that Iran was diverting its nuclear program for military purposes. Nevertheless, Washington and Tel Aviv chose to act unilaterally, eroding not only international legitimacy, but the last remnants of trust in multilateral mechanisms.
The predicted attack
The attacks were not surprising to those who closely followed Iranian documents. For months, the US had increased rhetoric around the so-called “Iranian threat” despite confirming the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear activity. Looking back, it has become clear that US diplomacy exists as an effort to prevent escalation, but is a calculated stall operation. Each round of negotiation, each expected de-expansion gesture, was merely a tactic to buy time, as the attack was prepared.
The adjustment between Washington and Tel Aviv was clear from the start. The Israeli operation on June 13 marked the beginning of a new phase of hostilities against Iran, serving as a test balloon to measure Iran’s response capabilities and lay the foundation for US intervention. The narrative of “justified responses” carefully crafted by both administrations is as predictable as it is ironic. The nuclear power of acting as judges, ju judges and executioners in global fields designed by them themselves.
The instrumentality of law
International law expressly prohibits the use of armed force, except for self-defense, through self-defense against armed attacks or through resolutions by the UN Security Council. In this case, neither condition was met. What happened is no exception, and is part of a long-standing pattern of instrumenting legal norms through hegemonic forces. In this framework, rules are adaptable rather than universal. It is strictly applied to the enemy and ignored for inconvenient allies or themselves.
Since its founding, the international legal system has been shaped to serve the interests of power. The non-nutrition regime, which allows nuclear forces to maintain their arsenals without a serious commitment to disarming, while imposing strict restrictions on the country in the global southern part, is one of the clearest expressions of this asymmetry. The moral classification of the state – “responsible democracy” and “dangerous regimes” allow for the discriminatory application of legality, a neocolonial logic that recreates the old imperial order in new vocabulary.
The collapse of order
The attack on Iran is not just a violation of the core principles of international law. They also deepened the structural crisis of the world order. The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), once a central pillar of collective security, has been stripped of its meaning. If IAEA compliance does not protect the state from military assault, what incentives are there to comply with the rules?
The result is profound:
Illegalization of NPT: Aggression indicates that compliance with the treaty does not provide protection or recognition.
Incentives for Nuclear Deterrence: In a legal framework without guarantees, development of deterrence capabilities is a reasonable option for global Southern states.
Erosion of multilateralism: Unilateral action replaces institutional mechanisms and turns international security into a lawless game of power.
Law as Imperial Technology
Modern international law remains fixed in colonial architecture. Its institutional, language, and verification mechanisms reflect the dynamics of forces that were fake after World War II and solidified during the Cold War. Within this structure, the Global South is not only investigated, but also defined by others. Its legality, rationality, and margin of action are subject to Western countries’ judgment.
Classifying Iran as a “threat” or “destabilizing” arises not from verifiable facts, but from the device of argument that cast it as “other” that is uncontrollable. To this matrix, Iran’s response, measured, strategic and legally grounded, not only disrupts the stereotypes imposed, but also reveals that the true threat to the global order arises from the centre, not from the periphery.
Iran responds: Legality and Resistance
Despite the brutality of the attack, Iran chose a calculated response. As government sources pointed out, the key facility had been evacuated a few days ago amid growing suspicions of an imminent strike. This confirms that Tehran was not caught off guard, but rather acted with vision and responsibility, and avoided escalation beyond what the rights of self-defense enshrined by the UN Charter require.
Iran’s response targets a deeper front, a struggle for legitimacy, beyond the military dimension. Iran is turning arguments from the realm of power to the realm of justice by denounceing aggression through international organizations and evoking universal legal principles. The potential closure of the Strait of Hormuz, created by Iranian analysts, should not be seen as an irrational threat, but as a legitimate measure in response to a violation of its sovereignty.
From the perspective of the global South, historically exposed to violence and double standards, such a response represents an act of political dignity. This is not about breaking the rules, but about exposing any nature. As demonstrated by attacks from the US and Israel, violence is not a systemic accident. It is one of its structural conditions.
The attack on Iran must be analysed not from a proportional or tactical wisdom perspective, but as a manifestation of deeper logic. It is of an international system that has lost all the capacity to arbitrate fairly among its members. The US intervention was a conscious and planned decision based on the belief that it was the ultimate language of global politics, not a hopeless movement.
As long as Washington and Tel Aviv act with immunity, and as long as law is a tool for something powerful, international security will remain mirable. The only path to a truly equitable global order must be dismantled by the colonial structure of international law and replaced with a comprehensive legal framework that reflects not only the interests of powerful people, but also the dignity of those who have been silent for a long time.