Iran war marks turning point for global order, Analyst says
He argues that any forced transformation of Iran risks triggering unpredictable political shifts across the region. Iran’s geographic position and historical influence make it too central, he writes, for external restructuring efforts to proceed smoothly.
The escalating conflict between the United States, Israel and Iran represents a watershed moment in international relations, according to political analyst Fyodor Lukyanov.
Written in Rossiyskaya Gazeta and republished by Russia in Global Affairs, Lukyanov argues that the latest military action against Iran signals the erosion of long-standing diplomatic and legal norms that once constrained global powers.
Decline of international legal norms
According to the analyst, previous US military interventions were at least accompanied by attempts to secure international legitimacy. Before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the administration of George W. Bush sought authorization from the United Nations Security Council. Then-Secretary of State Colin Powell famously presented evidence alleging Iraqi weapons of mass destruction in a bid to justify military action.
While that effort ultimately failed to win broad international backing, Lukyanov contends that it reflected a belief that formal justification was still necessary.
In contrast, he writes, the current escalation with Iran unfolded without any visible attempt to obtain approval from international institutions. Debate within Washington has centered instead on domestic constitutional questions, including whether President Donald Trump had congressional authorization to initiate military action.
Targeted killing of Iran’s leader
Lukyanov describes the reported killing of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei as a significant escalation in state conduct. He notes that, unlike prior cases of regime change, the operation involved the targeted elimination of a sitting leader of a UN-recognized state during an ongoing diplomatic process.
He contrasts this with the 2011 death of Muammar Gaddafi, who was killed during internal upheaval in Libya, and the execution of Saddam Hussein following trial proceedings after the Iraq War.
The analyst argues that the method more closely resembles Israeli operations against leaders of armed groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas—tactics he says have now been applied to the leadership of a sovereign state.
Broader regional implications
Lukyanov warns that the Middle East could face renewed instability similar to the aftermath of the 2003 Iraq invasion, which he says disrupted the regional balance of power and unintentionally strengthened Tehran’s influence.
He argues that any forced transformation of Iran risks triggering unpredictable political shifts across the region. Iran’s geographic position and historical influence make it too central, he writes, for external restructuring efforts to proceed smoothly.
The analyst adds that while some in Washington may view the operation as an opportunity to solidify Israeli military dominance and deepen economic integration with Gulf states, past interventions demonstrate that such strategies often produce unintended consequences.
Shift toward force-based politics
Beyond the immediate conflict, Lukyanov concludes that the episode reflects a broader global trend: the growing reliance on coercion over diplomacy.
He suggests that for countries negotiating with Washington, the lesson may be that military power, rather than legal frameworks or diplomatic assurances, is increasingly decisive.
Whether or not political change occurs in Tehran, he writes, the precedent set by the current conflict will shape international behavior for years to come.
The article was first published in Rossiyskaya Gazeta and later translated and edited for international audiences. RT
